villainsfandomcom-20200225-history
Talk:Zamasu
Add Fusion section to "power" heading As Fusion Zamasu, his power far eclipses that of Goku, Vegeta, and Trunks combined, even when all three fight him at full power, and his immortality combined with Goku Black's ability to constantly increase in power makes him a nigh-unbeatable force. Despite the fact that he is immortal, his attacks can be matched and pushed back by a Team Attack or an extremely powerful Kamehameha, causing him to become enraged at how mortals could still defy his limitless might. The Lord of Deathless (talk) 02:15, November 10, 2016 (UTC) Split page? Should Future Zamasu have his own page? It doesn't make sense to have every incarnation of Zamasu on one page except Goku Black on his own. The Lord of Deathless (talk) 22:12, November 16, 2016 (UTC) Moving info. All information pertaining to Present Zamasu should be moved to Goku Black's page. Because Black is fom the main Timeline before it was altered and Present Zamasu is the "past" version of Black. --TheAwesomeHyperon (talk) 22:58, November 16, 2016 (UTC) Both Zamasu and Goku Black become complete monsters after revealing they killed Future Bulma, Goku and his family, all the kais and gods, and even destroyed the super dragon balls (to preventing anyone from undoing their evil acts) and after becoming Fusion Zamasu he killed all the remaining earthlings (including Yajirobe, Android 8 and Turtle) on Future Earth. Even after Future Trunks destroyed Fusion Zamasu's body, his essence spreaded across the multiverse destroying mortals everywhere and threatened to destroy all the remaining timelines if Goku had not summoned Future Omni-King Zeno to destroy him for good. I think Zamasu (and Goku Black) is considered the darkest and most vile villain in the entire Dragon Ball series and should be a called a complete monster after everything he's done in the end. BCPX095LS (talk) 17:45, November 22, 2016 (UTC) I disagree. Both Zamasu and Goku Black wouldn't be considered a Complete Monster due to the fact that, despite all the evil and heinous things both of them did, they truly believed it was for the greater good. Both of them thought mortals had used their god-given wisdom for selfish acts and personal gain and henceforth were the source of all evil in their "beautiful" and "peaceful" world. Zamasu and Goku Black believed that killing all the mortals was an act of "justice" on behalf of the gods and a world without them would be a "utopia". It's different from that of the likes of Frieza, who killed people and destroyed worlds simply because he was an evil scumbag and loved it. (DevinMarston (talk) 11:33, November 25, 2016 (UTC)) Maybe your right. But Zamasu and Black should on the 'Game Changer','Xenophobes' and 'Mental illness' pages because of how greatly unstable, dark and insane they are. Also we need images of Fusion Zamasu's bodiless form and his death afterwards in the gallery don't you think. BCPX095LS (talk) 17:42, November 26, 2016 (UTC) Some CM's are delusional and TV Tropes plan to discuss them relatively soon but not Game Changer's as the show isn't lighthearted from what I hear and DBZ itself isn't lighthearted only Dragon Ball was and under Genocidal so Xenophobic is redundant since it's clear you think a race is inferior or undeserving of existing with in the setting. Jester of chaos (talk) 18:12, November 26, 2016 (UTC) DBS is much llighter than DBZ and even if it wasn't someone who requires INTENIOALLY CAUISNG THE END OF THE MULTIVERSE to defeat would STILL be the greatest Game Changer/Knight Of Cerebus imaginable.-Thad485 From the sound the DBS has a Frieza revival, a character that essentially ruins wars only to fix them and a that doesn't allow a Game Changer. Game Changer is in a series that's a very lighthearted series where there isn't serious threats or overall dark themes which seems to be far from the case with any Dragon Ball series after the original Dragon Ball. Jester of chaos (talk) 16:37, January 29, 2017 (UTC) *Facepalms* DBS DOESN'T HAVE overall dark themes outside of the Future Trunks saga,IT ACTUALLY IS (mostly) LIGHTHEARTED OUTSIDE OF ZAMASU'S ARC and Frost,Hit,Berrus, aren't serious threats,they're more like jokes than anything,even Frieza is just patheic,rather than threatining,Zamasu is the only villain to ACTUALLY be a theart,(besides MAYBE Zeno,but its still unclear if HE'S a villain),dumbass.-Thad548 **Lets see characters ruin or flat out destroy worlds (Frost, Beerus and Frieza in the past), Frieza is still portrayed as a CM. Ruining worlds isn't lighthearted itself as it involves killing or ruining countless lives and so on. We are very strict with Game Changer and I highly recommend you drop that attitude. Jester of chaos (talk) 17:30, January 29, 2017 (UTC) **Hmm,let's see NONE OF THEM THREATHEN THE ENTIRE MULTIVERSE,I suggest you get a SANE standard. ***When you have a threat to even a universe being you know common for DB series you are too serious for a Game Changer as it's only series where all or most villains are not any threats. That is a sane standard. Your standard is like having a series of serial killers but one having one that is even worse counting as a GC despite it already has too dark of a running theme which destroying worlds is a dark recurring theme if you think of it. Jester of chaos (talk) 18:10, January 29, 2017 (UTC) *** Agreed with Jester. He is the most destructive character so far (barring Zen'o) but Beerus alone in the first few episodes had destroyed several planets on-screen for petty reasons. It is NOT lighthearted.Stolen5487 (talk) 19:33, January 29, 2017 (UTC) While not saying that either definitely qualify as of yet, I don't see how they're "well-intentioned." They both clearly express sadistic delight at slaughtering mortals. Sure, that may not change much, but I think they're far from being well-intentioned. AustinDR (talk) 12:18, November 26, 2016 (UTC) Goku Black and Zamasu share delight in killing mortals, but ultimately do truly believe they're in the right and think the extinction of mortals is for the greater good. Complete Monsters is only used if the person is pure evil. Fusion Zamasu literally cried because he thought he was enacting justice and making the world a better place through his actions. Through that logic, they can't possibly be called pure evil. (DevinMarston (talk) 08:56, December 6, 2016 (UTC)) This argument reminds me, are you entirely sure TVTropes decided to list him (them?) as a complete monsters? Because I don't see either Zamasu OR Goku Black on the Monster/Dragon Ball page (in fact, currently, the entry for Dragon Ball Super only has Frieza from the Resurrection F saga in there). As far as DevinMarston's argument, I want to say a Complete Monster would need to be pure evil and not cry because they thought they were enacting justice, but then again... Maleficent (and I'm referring to the 1950s version) is literally the "Mistress of All Evil", which means she's literally pure evil, yet she doesn't get an entry in the Complete Monster page, so yeah, not sure about that... Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:42, December 7, 2016 (UTC) Yes, he has been confirmed as a CM. See discussion here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=2916#72884. As for Goku Black crying, no he's not crying because he's regretful of what he's doing; he's crying out of narcissism believing that he and he alone can bring justice to the universe. He will be added to the Monster page in due time. AustinDR (talk), 10:47, December 7, 2016 (UTC) Okay, though I expected them to do it in a few minutes, not a few days (since that's how long I would have taken to add it in). Though can you explain why Maleficent isn't a Complete Monster despite not only her being quite explicitly pure evil, but also the fact that she doesn't have ANY redeemable aspects to her at ALL (especially not in the 1950s film), with even Claude Frollo having more redeemable aspects to him than she does (let's put it this way, if Maleficent was told that she'd suffer eternal damnation if she doesn't take Quasimodo in, she'd grin immensely and proceed to not only dump Quasimodo in the well, but then brutally murder the archdeacon in turn and mock him, NOT take Quadimodo in). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:56, December 7, 2016 (UTC) (sigh) Frollo doesn't have redeeming traits; he is a self-righteous prick who literally burns Paris to the ground in order to force a member of the race that he's seeking to eradicate to either be his or die. Where in the movie does he even show an iota of mitigating factors? Hellfire? While you could make the argument that he says "God have mercy on her, God have mercy on me," he immediately proclaims that she would either be his or she would burn. This is known as an ignored epiphany; a character would realize that they were wrong, but they either completely ignore this revelation or forget it. This is the case with Frollo; while he might've began to realize that he was a monster, he ultimately casts away those feelings and becomes worse in the film. I am not going to entertain your complaints on Maleficient not qualifying as I have talked to DEATH about it. AustinDR (talk), 11:01, December 7, 2016 (UTC) His taking in Quasimodo at all is very much a mitigating factor. Had it been me in Frollo's position, and I was a complete monster, guess what? I'd not only dump Quasimodo in the well anyway, completely ignore the Archdeacon, but his claiming my soul would be damned would if anything make me even MORE eager to kill Quasimodo. In other words, I'd behave like Volgin did here (bonus points in that Ocelot tried to talk Volgin out of launching the Davy Crockett like the Archdeacon did to Frollo), or heck, how Joker behaved when he killed Batgirl and Robin in front of Batman in The Nail despite the latter begging him to let them go. When I think of Complete Monsters, I think of people who go out of their way to do the most horrific and pointless acts evils precisely for the sake of causing evil, go out of their way to avoid doing ANY good at all, outright enjoying causing all pain, misery, and evil simply because they could. Besides, the Dursleys treated Harry Potter just as badly as Frollo treated Quasimodo badly, arguably even WORSE, yet not only were they NOT considered Complete Monsters, but Dumbledore if anything implied that their even taking Harry in at all is a redeemable trait in itself, one that disqualifies them from being CMs (in fact, when Petunia had Harry kept in and stopped Vernon from kicking Harry out, it was clear she only did so because Dumbledore essentially threatened Petunia if she didn't via a Howler, NOT out of the goodness of her heart. Otherwise, she wouldn't have needed the howler to stop Vernon. In fact, the Dursleys wouldn't have needed the howler at all.). If it's a redeemable trait for the Dursleys, it's most CERTAINLY a redeemable trait for Frollo. Even you have to admit that much. Either way, my point was not with Frollo this time around (I wasn't even going to argue his stance this time around, I just cited him as an example. I could use plenty of other Disney examples). My point is why Maleficent was NOT called a Complete Monster, and while you HAVE addressed my complaints about Frollo qualifying, I don't think you have addressed why Maleficent DOESN'T qualify, despite matching all of the criteria (Frollo at least had his conscience stop him from killing Quasimodo with some prodding from the Archdeacon. Maleficent only got stopped from murdering Aurora as a baby because Merriweather softened the blow of the curse after Maleficent left.). I see Complete Monsters as being like rigid math formulas or computer programming formulas, only one way to go with them, and requiring a rigid pattern and train of thought. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:30, December 7, 2016 (UTC) Him taking Quasimodo in is not mitigating in the slightest; he did it for entirely selfish reasons and if he would've gotten his way, he would've drowned Quasimodo when he was a baby. He emotionally abuses him, psychologically abuses him by calling him ugly and deformed, allows him to be tortured by the people during the Festival of Fools, the list goes on. I am not buying that whole "my soul will be damned to Hell if I don't do this" as an excuse. He only did what the Archdeacon asked of him, because he wanted to escape punishment. That is something that only a coward unwilling to face the consequences would do. Besides the fact that Maleficient is from a completely different film, but that film has its own heinous standard. Yes, Maleficient is heinous by the standards of her work, but she fails at the general heinous standard as her only crime is attempting to murder a child. While that is bad, it isn't enough to make her stand out. She is a generic evil lord. AustinDR (talk), 11:38, December 7, 2016 (UTC)